So, some guy I've never heard of is trying to set up a blogger's "code of conduct" and this is considered news these days. I will save my rant about journalists who think they can get by writing "news" stories about blog articles they found interesting for another time; here, I want to tackle the code itself. My problem with the code is twofold: it seems to be designed to coddle crybabies and weaklings, and it isn't even capable of doing that.

It begins with a happy little preamble:

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

This establishes a major fallacy which undermines the entire manifesto: namely, that it is possible to tell where the line between "frank, vigorous argument" and "unacceptable rudeness" lies, and that it will always be clear when that line is crossed. You can't just say "when people's feelings are hurt, you've gone too far", because people can be awfully emotionally attached to opinions and attitudes which are wildly factually incorrect. Should a Creationist get to claim religious persecution when someone gives them citations of a hundred and one different scientific papers showing evidence of evolution and a world more than 6000 years old? Furthermore, the depersonalised nature of the Internet makes it entirely possible for someone to claim to be vastly more upset about things than they really are.

The rest of the manifesto is devoted to defining the standards for "Civility Enforced" blogs. "Civility Enforced" blogs wear a cute little badge, a little like an Wild West sheriff's star, and I'm sure that it must feel lovely to put it on your website. "Civility Enforced" blogs - as opposed to freewheeling "Anything Goes" blogs - are supposed to adhere to certain standards, which the clauses of the manifesto define. In their first clause they set their face against "unacceptable content", and define it along these lines:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

Points 1 and 3 are fair enough. Point 2 would be okay if it weren't for the "ad-hominem" clause. Telling lies about someone else is horrible; saying something about them which is true and using that to undermine their argument is a weak argument from a strict logical standpoint, but isn't necessarily uncivil. If someone claims that he despises the Jews, feels that a strong totalitarian government is necessary for social order, and considers Hitler to be the ideal model of a world leader, I would say that I'd be perfectly within my rights to call him a Nazi. I would also be somewhat justified in saying "You're a Nazi, and you spout Holocaust denial theories because you want to make Nazism an acceptable political ideology again". Perhaps I would not have rigorously proved that allegation through logic, but it would be a more than reasonable accusation to make.

Point 4 is unenforceable. "You promised you wouldn't tell anyone!", the wounded-of-ego will cry. "I never said anything of the sort!" chirp their tormentors. Point 5 is just as bad - just how do you define a violation of privacy? Suppose you're clogging up my forum with homophobic rants and I happen to do a little googling and discover you have a personal ad on a gay dating site: would I be violating your privacy if I bring that up, or will I just be exposing your hypocrisy?

The second clause of the manifesto, "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person," is meaningless because it can't be challenged or verified by anyone who doesn't personally know the author. Moving straight onto clause 3:

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

Hell no. If I want a "Civility Enforced" blog, that means I have to get into a private discussion with a Holocaust denier before I call them on their bullshit? And I have to ask the people who are commenting on my blog to do the same? (For the record: anyone who has a problem with anything I say on Ferretbrain should feel free to comment directly on Ferretbrain. This is what blogs and net magazines are for.) It's also another one which is difficult to enforce - what happens when one commenter says "Hey, you should have connected with me privately (hurr) before you responded publicly" and the other commenter says "Hey, I did!"? There's no way to know who is in the right unless the latter commenter remembered to blind CC: the blog owner in on the private e-mails.

The fourth clause says that badge-wearing blog owners are devoted to taking action when they believe someone has broken the rules. Bully for them, but chances are they're doing so anyway if they remotely care about this sort of thing. Clause 5 is hilarious:

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

Okay, let me clear this up: you don't let people comment anonymously, but you're happy to let people go and set up a fake e-mail address using fake details and then comment under a pseudonym, just as anonymously as if they were able to directly post crap onto the site? That's going to help avoid spam bots but it isn't going to deter someone who intends to stir the shit.

Lastly, clause 6, or as I like to call it the Head-In-The-Sand Clause:

6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

Ha! I'm allowed to ignore every single criticism levelled at me, even if it is non-abusive and factually accurate, simply by deciding that it's "nasty"! It says so in my Internet Sheriff's licence!

This proposed code of conduct is a manifesto for the weak and those with a mewling fear of conflict. It is a licence for people to win arguments by deciding that they are offended. It will fail because at the end of the day it relies on blog owners to enforce it, and if you're the sort of person who's willing to enforce those kind of rules, you're probably already running a "civility-enforced" blog anyway. At the end of the day, the cute little badge is just a little sticker saying "I run a tight ship here". Forgive me if I think that that's the sort of reputation which should be earned, and which you can't gain simply by wearing a little badge and claiming you come down hard on internet rudeness.

Meanwhile, the people who run the BBC News website post an entirely uninsightful article about this particular piece of vacuous hot air from the blogosphere and pretend they are journalists.